In re the Marriage of Young
CA Washington · Jul 9, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Washington
- Record ID
- in-re-the-marriage-of-young-2026-07-09
- Observed outcome
- The court declined review of the contempt and discovery orders, dismissed the appeal of the jail-time order as moot, and denied the respondent's request for attorney fees.
- Known monetary consequence
- $0
Why this matter warrants attention
The court noted that the appellant's briefing included nonexistent case law, specifically citing Burke v. City of Seattle and In re Marriage of Guffin. While the court acknowledged these rule-based violations, it dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds—specifically untimeliness and mootness—rather than imposing sanctions for the citations.
The court declined review of contempt and discovery orders due to failure to timely appeal. It dismissed the appeal of the jail-time order as moot because the appellant had been released from custody. The court declined to award attorney fees despite the appellant's citation of nonexistent cases, basing the dismissal on procedural grounds rather than the quality of the briefing.
This case illustrates the intersection of pro se litigation and the use of unreliable research, resulting in the citation of nonexistent case law. It serves as a reminder that courts may address such failures in the context of procedural dismissals even when formal sanctions are not imposed.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Family
- Appellate
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- $0
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of trial court contempt, discovery, and incarceration orders.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.